Commissioners vote to allow accessory buildings on all properties

September 16, 2002|By Mark Beardslee

OTSEGO COUNTY - In a move about which one township official said, "I'm happy," the Otsego County Board of Commissioners voted 7-2 Tuesday not to return a proposed ordinance amendment which would allow the construction of accessory buildings on all parcels of property back to the county planning commission. The board subsequently voted 6-3 to approve the amendment.

Numerous construction company and township representatives were in attendance to voice their support for the newly worded ordinance, which will now allow structures for the storage of noncommercial personal property on lots without a principal building.

Corwith Township Treasurer Marilyn Cole spoke out in support of the new ordinance, saying it could increase state equalized values (SEV) in townships and the county as a whole. She noted that lots where such structures will be built are usually owned by persons who plan to eventually move to Otsego County permanently and said that if the amended ordinance did not pass, those persons would choose to locate in other, less restrictive, counties.

Advertisement

Commissioner Carl Lord, who proposed remanding the ordinance back to the planning commission to rewrite the amendment, said, "As far as I'm concerned, what the planning commission did was remove all control over this and their language would urbanize our rural areas. You hear about other counties. Well, I can tell you other counties don't allow this."

Agreeing with this stand was commissioner Ken Glasser, who observed, "If we remove these controls, we'll just be supporting sprawl and that's not what the people of Otsego County want. Sooner or later we'll have to decide whether we want a pole barn on every parcel."

Commissioner Lee Olsen spoke out for the majority when he said, "What we seem to do in Otsego County is discourage people from improving their property. I think we should pass this now and make modifications as needed."

The first vote, on whether to send the matter back to the planning commission failed, with only Lord and Glasser in support. The second vote, on whether to adopt the amended ordinance, passed, with commissioner Clark Bates joining Glasser and Lord in opposing its passage. Asked about his apparently contradictory votes, Bates said he was a little frustrated with the commission's committee system, saying it's often "a case of the tail wagging the dog." He added that he agrees that the amended ordinance will contribute to urban sprawl but felt that the full board should have dealt with the ordinance.

"I'm getting tired of this bouncing back and forth," he said. "The planning commission came up with a good compromise on handling storage buildings. I guess I didn't want to see no control but I didn't want to send it back to (the planning commission)."